Drawing Review Collaboration Control System Integrated with Permission Constraints

Abstract

The present invention discloses a collaborative control system for drawing review combined with permission constraints, belonging to the field of engineering project management, including: a review panel formation module for forming a drawing review panel; a review information fusion module for performing layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain a target review result; a dispute point identification module for obtaining the first dispute point; a revision decision module for introducing a revision decision mechanism to analyze multiple review opinions and generate an initial revised version; a re-review and re-examination module for introducing a re-review and re-examination mechanism to perform re-review and re-examination processing on the initial revised version to obtain the target revised version of the target power drawing. The review opinions are reasonably fused according to the differences in the permissions of reviewers, the review dispute points are quickly identified and targeted for solution, and the efficiency and quality of power drawing review are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of engineering project management, and particularly to a drawing review collaborative control system combined with permission constraints. Background Art

[0002] Power system drawings are important bases for power engineering construction, operation, maintenance, etc., and their quality directly affects the safe and stable operation of the power system. To ensure the quality of power system drawings, a strict review process is required before the formal release of the drawings. In the prior art, the review of power system drawings is completed collaboratively by multiple people. Reviewers review the drawings according to their respective professional backgrounds and experiences, and put forward revision opinions. However, there are significant differences in the professional backgrounds, professional directions, and work experiences of reviewers, and the importance of review opinions also varies. The existing drawing review methods do not fully consider the weight differences of reviewers' opinions, and treat the opinions of different reviewers equally, resulting in low review efficiency and difficulty in focusing on key issues. In addition, during the collaborative review process, different reviewers often give different opinions, or even completely opposite opinions, on the same issue. It is necessary to analyze and weigh each review opinion one by one, evaluate its rationality and determine whether to adopt it, which is time-consuming and inefficient. For the controversial points where reviewers' opinions conflict, it leads to repeated modification of the drawings, low review quality, and seriously affects the construction progress in severe cases. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The present application provides a drawing review collaborative control system combined with permission constraints, aiming to solve the technical problems in the prior art that the weights of review opinions are not distinguished during the review process of power system drawings, and it is difficult to efficiently solve review disputes, resulting in low efficiency and quality of power system drawing reviews.

[0004] The drawing review collaboration control system combined with permission constraints disclosed in this application includes: a review panel formation module for forming a drawing review panel, where the drawing review panel includes a first reviewer with the first review permission and a second reviewer with the second review permission; a review information fusion module for performing layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain a target review result, where the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the first review permission, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the second review permission; a dispute point identification module for obtaining a first dispute point, where the first dispute point refers to any one of multiple review dispute points in the target review result, the first dispute point corresponds to a first review list, and the first review list includes multiple review opinions of multiple reviewers; a revision decision module for introducing a revision decision mechanism to analyze the multiple review opinions and generate an initial revised version; a re-review and re-examination module for introducing a re-review and re-examination mechanism to perform re-review and re-examination processing on the initial revised version to obtain the target revised version of the target power drawing.

[0005] One or more technical solutions provided in this application have at least the following technical effects or advantages:

[0006] Since a drawing review panel is formed through the review panel formation module, the drawing review panel includes a first reviewer with the first review authority and a second reviewer with the second review authority. By hierarchically managing the reviewers, it lays a foundation for assigning different weights to different review opinions. Through the review information fusion module, the first review information and the second review information are processed for layer fusion according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result. Among them, the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer's review of the target power drawing based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer's review of the target power drawing based on the second review authority. By hierarchically fusing the review opinions of different reviewers, the review result is made more comprehensive and objective, taking into account the opinions of reviewers at different levels. Through the dispute point identification module, the first dispute point is obtained. The first dispute point refers to any one of multiple review dispute points in the target review result. The first dispute point corresponds to the first review list, and the first review list includes multiple review opinions of multiple reviewers. By identifying the disputed points in the target review result and summarizing the opinions of relevant reviewers, it prepares for subsequent analysis and processing of the dispute points. Through the revision decision module, a revision decision mechanism is introduced to analyze multiple review opinions and generate an initial revised version, improving the revision efficiency. Through the re-review and re-examination module, a re-review and re-examination mechanism is introduced to perform re-review and re-examination processing on the initial revised version to obtain the target revised version of the target power drawing. By reviewing the revised drawing again, the rationality of the revision is verified from multiple perspectives, further improving the quality of the power drawing. The technical solution solves the technical problems in the prior art that the weights of review opinions are not distinguished during the review process of power drawings and it is difficult to efficiently solve review disputes, resulting in low efficiency and quality of power drawing reviews, and achieves the technical problems of reasonably fusing review opinions according to the differences in reviewer authorities, quickly identifying and targeted solving review dispute points, and improving the efficiency and quality of power drawing reviews.

[0007] The above description is only an overview of the technical solution of this application. In order to be able to more clearly understand the technical means of this application, it can be implemented in accordance with the content of the specification. And in order to make the above and other purposes, features and advantages of this application more obvious and understandable, the following specifically gives the specific implementation manners of this application. Brief Description of the Drawings

[0008] Figure 1 FIG. 9 is a schematic structural diagram of a drawing review collaboration control system combined with permission constraints provided by an embodiment of this application;

[0009] Figure 2 FIG. 13 is a schematic flowchart of obtaining a target review result in a drawing review collaboration control system combined with permission constraints provided by an embodiment of this application.

[0010] Description of the drawing reference numerals: Jury formation module 11, review information fusion module 12, dispute point identification module 13, revision decision module 14, re-review and re-examination module 15. Detailed implementation manners

[0011] The overall idea of the technical solution provided by this application is as follows:

[0012] The embodiment of this application provides a drawing review collaborative control system combined with permission constraints. First, the jury formation module forms a jury including reviewers with different permissions according to the permission differences of the reviewers, laying a foundation for distinguishing the weights of review opinions. Second, the review information fusion module uses the review layer fusion strategy to hierarchically fuse the review results of different reviewers, making the review opinions more comprehensive and objective and taking into account the opinions of reviewers at different levels. Then, the dispute point identification module identifies the disputed points in the review results and summarizes the opinions of relevant reviewers, preparing for the subsequent analysis and processing of the dispute points. Next, the revision decision module uses the revision decision mechanism to scientifically analyze the review opinions related to the dispute points, resolve the differences, and form a preliminary revision plan. After that, the re-review and re-examination module verifies the revised drawing from multiple angles through the re-review and re-examination mechanism, further improving the drawing quality.

[0013] After introducing the basic principle of this application, the non-limiting implementation manners of this application will be specifically introduced below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings of the specification.

[0014] As Figure 1 shown, the embodiment of this application provides a drawing review collaborative control system combined with permission constraints, and the system includes:

[0015] A jury formation module 11, configured to form a drawing review jury, where the drawing review jury includes a first reviewer with a first review permission and a second reviewer with a second review permission.

[0016] Specifically, first, the jury formation module 11 obtains the basic information of the target power drawing through file parsing technology. Specifically, it reads the metadata of the target power drawing and uses a predefined keyword matching algorithm to determine the sub-field to which the target power drawing belongs; at the same time, it analyzes the complexity of the target power drawing and calculates the technical difficulty coefficient of the drawing, so as to comprehensively understand the attributes and characteristics of the target power drawing. After obtaining the basic information of the target power drawing, the jury formation module 11 accesses the expert database, in which the detailed information of each reviewer is stored. The jury formation module 11 first retrieves relevant reviewers according to the sub-field to which the target power drawing belongs, and then matches jury members with appropriate professional capabilities and experience in combination with the technical difficulty coefficient.

[0017] After the jury members are selected, the jury formation module 11 uses role-based access control technology to assign permissions to each reviewer. The jury formation module 11 presets multiple reviewer roles and associates a corresponding set of permissions with each role. The jury formation module 11 divides roles according to the professional capabilities and experience of the reviewers and automatically assigns corresponding review permissions, such as the first review permission for reviewing the design concept and the second review permission for reviewing the design details. Among them, the reviewer corresponding to the first review permission is the first reviewer, and the reviewer corresponding to the second review permission is the second reviewer.

[0018] Through the jury formation module 11, a professional and efficient review team is quickly and accurately formed for each drawing to be reviewed, and the review tasks and permissions are reasonably allocated, improving the efficiency and quality of the review work and laying a solid foundation for the subsequent drawing review link.

[0019] The review information fusion module 12 is used to perform layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result, where the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the first review permission, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the second review permission.

[0020] Specifically, the first reviewer reviews the target power drawing based on the first review permission to obtain the first review information. The first review permission assigns the first reviewer the responsibility of controlling and reviewing the drawing from the perspective of overall design. Among them, the first review information includes review opinions on aspects such as design concept and key technical indicators. At the same time, the second reviewer reviews the target power drawing based on the second review permission to obtain the second review information. The second review permission assigns the second reviewer the responsibility of reviewing the drawing from the perspective of design details. Among them, the second review information includes review opinions on specific design contents such as equipment selection, material selection, and process parameters.

[0021] After obtaining the first review information and the second review information, the review information fusion module 12 comprehensively processes the two types of information using a preset review layer fusion strategy. Among them, the review layer fusion strategy refers to fusing the review opinions of different reviewers according to certain rules and methods to generate a unified and comprehensive review result. For example, according to the review layer fusion strategy, the review information fusion module 12 maps the first review information and the second review information to different layers of the drawing respectively, and then performs weighted synthesis on the layers according to factors such as the importance of each layer and the consistency of the review opinions; for another example, according to the review layer fusion strategy, the review information fusion module 12 uses natural language processing technology to perform semantic analysis on the text opinions in the first review information and the second review information, extracts key information and conducts synthesis.

[0022] Through the application of the review layer fusion strategy, the review information fusion module 12 generates a unified target review result, which synthesizes the review opinions of the first reviewer and the second reviewer, can comprehensively and accurately reflect the design quality and existing problems of the drawing, and improves the efficiency and quality of the entire drawing review process.

[0023] The dispute point identification module 13 is used to obtain the first dispute point, where the first dispute point refers to any one of the multiple review dispute points in the target review result. The first dispute point corresponds to a first review list, and the first review list includes multiple review opinions of multiple reviewers.

[0024] Specifically, the target review result contains multiple review dispute points. A review dispute point refers to a situation where different reviewers have different opinions on the same design content of the drawing. These dispute points may involve various aspects such as design ideas, technical indicators, and equipment selection, reflecting potential problems or optimization spaces in the drawing design.

[0025] After obtaining the target review result, the dispute point identification module 13 traverses multiple review dispute points from the target review result, selects one review dispute point as the first dispute point each time, and generates a corresponding first review list for this dispute point. Among them, the first review list is a summary table that contains different review opinions of multiple reviewers on the first dispute point. In the form of a list, the first review list clearly shows the differences and differences in views of each reviewer on the dispute point.

[0026] By generating the first review list, the dispute point identification module 13 effectively extracts and centrally presents the review differences, can quickly understand the focus of the review disputes, and carry out subsequent discussions and modification work targeted.

[0027] The revision decision-making module 14 is used to introduce a revision decision-making mechanism to analyze the multiple review opinions and generate an initial revision version.

[0028] Specifically, the revision decision-making module 14 introduces a revision decision-making mechanism for comprehensively analyzing multiple review opinions in the first review list. The revision decision-making mechanism comprehensively considers factors such as the professional capabilities of each reviewer, the degree of consistency of the review opinions, and the importance of the opinions, and automatically generates an initial revised version through methods such as weighted calculation and logical reasoning. First, classify and count the review opinions in the first review list to identify the support degrees of different modification suggestions; second, according to the preset decision rules, rank and screen different modification suggestions by priority to determine the finally adopted modification opinions; after that, automatically generate the initial revised version of the drawing based on the adopted modification opinions, and mark the positions and contents of the modifications.

[0029] By introducing the revision decision-making mechanism, the revision decision-making module 14 can quickly and efficiently complete the comprehensive analysis and decision-making of the review opinions, reducing the workload of manual processing and improving the review efficiency.

[0030] The re-review module 15 is used to introduce a re-review mechanism to perform re-review processing on the initial revised version to obtain the target revised version of the target power drawing.

[0031] Specifically, the re-review module 15 introduces a re-review mechanism to perform multiple rounds of review and modification on the initial revised version, and finally generates the target revised version of the target power drawing, improving the accuracy and reliability of the drawing revision.

[0032] In the re-review mechanism, the re-review module 15 first sends the initial revised version to the original drawing review panel for re-review. The reviewers will focus on checking whether the modification opinions adopted by the revision decision-making module 14 are correctly implemented and conduct an overall evaluation of the revised drawing. If the re-review results show that there are still problems or omissions, the initial revised version will be further modified and improved. After the re-review session, the initial revised version that passes the re-review enters the review session and is submitted to a new drawing review panel for review. The new drawing review panel is composed of experts who did not participate in the original review and evaluates the overall quality of the drawing revision. After passing the evaluation, the target revised version of the target power drawing is determined.

[0033] Through the re-review module 15, the target revised version of the target power drawing is formed, improving the efficiency and quality of the drawing revision and providing a reliable guarantee for the smooth implementation of the engineering project.

[0034] Furthermore, the review panel formation module includes the following execution steps:

[0035] Extract the first review category from the set of drawing review categories; form the first review personnel set for the first review category, and form the drawing review panel according to the first review personnel set; wherein, the set of drawing review categories at least includes a preliminary review category set, a technical review category set, a safety review category set, an economic review category set, and an environmental impact assessment category set.

[0036] In a feasible implementation manner, the review panel formation module 11 first extracts the first review category from the preset set of drawing review categories. The set of drawing review categories is a preset category set according to different professional fields and review focuses of drawing reviews, and at least includes the following five categories: the preliminary review category set, the technical review category set, the safety review category set, the economic review category set, and the environmental impact assessment category set. Each category set contains a series of review items and contents related to that professional field. Among them, the preliminary review category set evaluates the basic requirements and overall design of the drawings, including checking the integrity and compliance of the drawings, verifying whether the design meets the standards, and preliminarily evaluating the rationality and feasibility of the design, etc.; the technical review category set focuses on the technical details and professional contents of the drawing design, including aspects such as electrical system design, equipment selection, distribution device layout, grounding and lightning protection design, cable line laying, and lighting system design; the safety review category set emphasizes a comprehensive evaluation of the safety of the drawing design, including both electrical safety reviews and pre-judging and preventing safety risks during the construction process; the economic review category set analyzes the economic rationality of the drawing design. On the one hand, it evaluates the cost input of the design scheme, including the initial construction cost and the later operation and maintenance cost, and on the other hand, it reviews whether the energy-saving measures in the drawings are reasonable and effective to achieve the purpose of economic operation; the environmental impact assessment category set is an environmental assessment of the drawing design to ensure that the design scheme meets environmental protection requirements and minimizes the impact of project implementation on the surrounding environment as much as possible.

[0037] Through the division of the set of drawing review categories, the review panel formation module 11 can extract the first review category targeted and form the corresponding first review personnel set according to the professional requirements of this category. The reviewers in the first review personnel set all have professional backgrounds and review capabilities matching the first review category, ensuring a comprehensive and accurate review of the drawing content under this professional category. Then, the review panel formation module 11 forms the final drawing review panel according to the first review personnel set. The professional composition of the review panel members of the drawing review panel corresponds to the drawing review categories, which not only ensures the professionalism and authority of the review panel as a whole, but also enables the subdivision and coordination of the review work, improving the review efficiency and quality.

[0038] Furthermore, the review panel formation module further includes the following execution steps:

[0039] Obtain the first review scope of the first review category; analyze the first review scope to obtain the first review authority, and open the first review authority to the first review personnel set.

[0040] In a feasible implementation manner, during the process of forming the drawing review panel, the review panel formation module 11 further improves the pertinence and standardization of the review work through the review authority.

[0041] After extracting the first review category, the review panel formation module 11 further obtains the first review scope of this category. The first review scope refers to the set of review tasks and responsibilities associated with the first review category, which clarifies the work boundaries and authority scopes of reviewers under this category. For example, for the electrical system design subcategory in the technical review category set, its first review scope includes specific tasks such as reviewing the main wiring design of the system, calculating short-circuit current parameters, and verifying relay protection setting values; while for the cost analysis subcategory in the economic review category set, its first review scope includes responsibilities such as reviewing the procurement cost of equipment and materials, evaluating the construction labor cost budget, and calculating the operation and maintenance cost estimate.

[0042] After obtaining the first review scope, the review panel formation module 11 conducts an in-depth analysis of it and generates the corresponding first review authority according to the analysis results. The first review authority is a further refinement and quantification of the first review scope, and through the set authority parameters, it defines the behavior boundaries and decision-making spaces of reviewers in specific review work. For example, the first review authority includes: the viewing authority of reviewers for drawing content (fully visible / partially visible / invisible), the decision-making authority of reviewers for review results (fully decision-making / partially decision-making / suggestive decision-making), the control authority of reviewers for the review process (fully controllable / partially controllable / uncontrollable), etc. Through the setting of these authority parameters, hierarchical management and process control of the review work are realized.

[0043] After generating the first review authority, the review panel formation module 11 opens it to all reviewers in the first review personnel set, so that each reviewer in the first review personnel set will obtain a review authority that matches their professional ability, and carry out the drawing review work within this authority range. The review task allocation mechanism based on authority can ensure that reviewers play the greatest role in their professional fields, and at the same time avoid the occurrence of overstepping authority review or blind review.

[0044] The review panel formation module 11 realizes the professional formation and refined management of the review team by introducing the review scope and review authority, improves the quality and efficiency of the drawing review work, and provides reliable support for the subsequent review work.

[0045] Further, as Figure 2 shown, the review information fusion module includes the following execution steps:

[0046] Extract any review information of any drawing point by the first reviewer from the first review information; read the predetermined review label strategy, and perform labeling processing on the any review information according to the predetermined review label strategy to obtain an arbitrary label map; generate a first review viewable according to the arbitrary label map; obtain a second review viewable of the second review information; perform layer fusion processing on the first review viewable and the second review viewable according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result.

[0047] In a feasible implementation manner, the review information fusion module 12 first extracts any review information of any drawing point by the first reviewer from the first review information. Herein, the drawing point refers to any design element or position in the drawing, such as equipment, circuit, layout, etc.; the review information refers to the review opinions and suggestions given by the reviewer for this point, such as "unreasonable equipment selection", "cable circuit design needs to be optimized", etc. After extracting the review information, the review information fusion module 12 reads the predetermined review label strategy and performs labeling processing on each review information according to this strategy. The predetermined review label strategy is a pre-defined label rule and classification system for mapping different types and levels of review opinions into standardized review labels. For example, the review label strategy sets different levels of labels such as "X1", "X2", "X3", etc. according to the severity of the review opinions, corresponding to different intensities of review results such as "very unreasonable equipment selection, need to be adjusted", "very unreasonable cable circuit, need to be adjusted", "cost higher than budget, need to be adjusted", etc. By performing labeling processing on the review information, the review information fusion module 12 converts the originally scattered and non-standard review opinions into a structured and standardized data format, which is convenient for subsequent analysis and processing. At the same time, the review labels corresponding to each review information also constitute a label map, intuitively presenting the problem distribution and severity of this point in different review dimensions.

[0048] Based on the label maps, the review information fusion module 12 further generates a first review visualization view. The first review visualization view is a comprehensive image obtained by superimposing and fusing the label maps of all first reviewers, which centrally displays the review results and problem distributions of the first reviewers for the entire drawing. While generating the first review visualization view, the review information fusion module 12 obtains the review information of the second reviewer, and through the same labeling process and visualization steps, generates a second review visualization view, which reflects the review opinion distribution and problem focus of the second reviewer. After that, the review information fusion module 12 performs layer fusion processing on the first review visualization view and the second review visualization view according to the preset review layer fusion strategy. The review layer fusion strategy is to fuse multiple review visualization views into a unified target review result by comprehensively considering factors such as the weights of different reviewers, the priorities of review labels, and the spatial distribution of problems. For example, the layer fusion strategy merges and counts the same type of labels of different reviewers, and generates a comprehensive problem map according to the frequency and distribution of label occurrences; conducts cross-analysis on different types of review labels to identify weak links and optimization priorities in the drawing design; combines the professional weights of each reviewer to perform weighted mixing on different view layers to obtain the final review result map as the target review result.

[0049] Through the labeling process and multi-view fusion of the review information fusion module 12, the review opinions of different reviewers are highly integrated and centrally presented, and through an intuitive visualization method, it provides a decision-making reference for subsequent drawing problem positioning and optimization and improvement.

[0050] Furthermore, the review information fusion module further includes the following execution steps:

[0051] Determine N reference points in the first review visualization view as registration points according to the review layer fusion strategy, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3; according to the registration points, perform offset registration on N points to be registered in the second review visualization view to obtain the target review result.

[0052] In a feasible implementation manner, the review information fusion module 12 determines N reference points in the first review visualization view as registration points according to the review layer fusion strategy. Among them, N is an integer greater than or equal to 3. The selection of the registration points needs to meet the following conditions: First, the positions in the first review visualization view should be relatively fixed and clear, easy to identify and extract; second, they should be distributed as much as possible in different areas of the drawing to cover the entire review scope. For example, select key nodes such as substations, distribution rooms, and electrical equipment as registration points. After determining the N registration points in the first review visualization view, the review information fusion module 12 identifies the corresponding N points to be registered in the second review visualization view.

[0053] Since the two review visible views correspond to the same drawing, there is a one-to-one point relationship between the two drawings. However, due to the different annotation habits and precision differences of different reviewers, there may be a certain offset or misalignment between the points to be matched in the second review visible view and the registration points in the first review visible view. To eliminate this deviation, the review information fusion module 12 performs geometric transformations such as overall displacement, rotation, and scaling on the second review visible view based on the registration points of the first review visible view, so that the N points in the two views can coincide as accurately as possible.

[0054] Through view alignment based on registration points, the review information fusion module 12 effectively eliminates the geometric deviation between different review visible views and realizes the precise overlay and fusion of layers. After registration is completed, all the graphics and labels in the second review visible view will be spatially consistent with the first review visible view, thereby obtaining the target review result after geometric registration.

[0055] Furthermore, the re-review and re-examination module includes the following execution steps:

[0056] The re-review and re-examination mechanism includes a review verification mechanism; screening the multiple reviewers according to the review verification mechanism to obtain a target verifier set, where the target verifier set includes each reviewer corresponding to the majority review opinions among the multiple review opinions; obtaining the verification results of each verifier in the verification group on the initial revised version, where the verification group refers to a combination of three verifiers randomly extracted from the target verifier set; when the verification results do not meet the first passing rate threshold, repairing the initial revised version.

[0057] In a feasible implementation manner, the re-review and re-examination mechanism of the re-review and re-examination module 15 includes a review verification mechanism. The purpose of the review verification mechanism is to timely discover and correct possible problems or omissions in the revision process through sampling inspection and cross-verification of the initial revised version, so as to ensure that the final revised result meets the expected quality requirements. When applying the review verification mechanism, the re-review and re-examination module 15 first screens the multiple reviewers participating in the original drawing review group to obtain a target verifier set. The selection criterion for the target verifier set is that the review opinions held by the reviewers included in it should be consistent with the opinions of the majority of reviewers, that is, the so-called majority review opinions. The majority review opinions refer to an opinion or suggestion that has received the most recognition and support from reviewers during the original review process. Through the above screening process, the re-review and re-examination module 15 selects a group of reviewers who have a consensus on the drawing problems and a consistent view on the revision plan from the original drawing review group to form a target verifier set.

[0058] After obtaining the target set of verifiers, the review and reexamination module 15 randomly selects three verifiers from them to form a verification group. Each verifier will independently review and evaluate the initial revision and give the corresponding verification results. The verification result can be passed or failed. Then, the review and reexamination module 15 comprehensively analyzes the verification results of each verifier and judges whether the overall quality of the initial revision meets the standards based on this. Among them, the preset first pass rate threshold is used as the measurement standard. The first pass rate threshold refers to the minimum requirement that the proportion of pass results in the verification group needs to meet. If the verification results of each verification group do not meet the first pass rate threshold, that is, the pass ratio does not meet the preset minimum requirement, it is considered that the initial revision still has problems and needs to be reworked and revised again until the revised version can meet the verification requirements.

[0059] By introducing a review and verification mechanism, we can effectively avoid omissions and negligence in the drawing revision process and improve the reliability of the revision results.

[0060] Furthermore, the review module also includes the following execution steps:

[0061] When the verification result meets the first pass rate threshold, obtain the repeated review mechanism in the re-evaluation and review mechanism; form a target reviewer set, wherein the target reviewer set refers to a set of reviewers after the target verification set is eliminated from the multiple reviewers; obtain the review results of the initial revised version by each reviewer in the review group, wherein the review group refers to a combination of three reviewers randomly selected from the target reviewer set; when the review result does not meet the second pass rate threshold, conduct a special collaborative review of the initial revised version.

[0062] In a feasible implementation, when the verification result meets the preset first passing rate threshold, that is, the passing proportion in the verification group reaches the expected requirement, it is considered that the initial revised version already has a certain quality basis and can enter the next review link, entering the repeated review mechanism in the re-evaluation review mechanism. When starting the repeated review mechanism, the re-evaluation review module 15 first forms a target reviewer set. This set is obtained by removing the target verifier set participating in the verification work on the basis of the original review team, so as to avoid the influence of preconceived ideas on the reviewers during the review process and ensure the independence and objectivity of the review opinions. After obtaining the target reviewer set, the re-evaluation review module 15 randomly selects three reviewers from it to form a review group. Each review group will independently review and evaluate the initial revised version and give the corresponding review result. The review result can be passed or not passed. The re-evaluation review module 15 comprehensively analyzes the review results of each review group and judges whether the overall quality of the initial revised version meets the standard accordingly. Among them, a preset second passing rate threshold is used as the measurement standard. The second passing rate threshold is similar to the first passing rate threshold, and it also refers to the minimum requirement that the proportion of passing results in the review group needs to reach. If the review result of the review group does not meet the second passing rate threshold, that is, the passing proportion does not reach the preset minimum requirement, it is considered that there may still be some remaining problems or optimization space in the initial revised version, and special collaborative review is required. The special collaborative review is a more detailed and in-depth review method. For the specific problems raised in the review opinions, relevant professional reviewers are organized for joint discussion and concentrated research.

[0063] By introducing the repeated review mechanism and the special collaborative review, the re-evaluation review module 15 further strengthens the quality control of the initial revised version. Through multi-round and multi-angle reviews and optimizations, the perfection degree of the revised plan is continuously improved, and the remaining problems and potential risks are minimized to the greatest extent.

[0064] Furthermore, when the review result meets the second passing rate threshold, the initial revised version is used as the target revised version, and the target revised version is archived and backed up to the cloud drawing library.

[0065] In a feasible implementation, when the review results of each review group meet the preset second passing rate threshold, that is, the passing proportion reaches the expected requirement, the re-evaluation review module 15 determines the initial revised version that has passed the review as the target revised version, which represents the final output of the drawing revision process. For the convenience of subsequent query, traceability and reuse, the re-evaluation review module 15 archives and backs up the target revised version in a standardized manner. The target storage location for archiving and backup is the cloud drawing library. This drawing library is a centralized data warehouse based on cloud storage technology, providing safe, reliable and efficient storage and management services for a large number of engineering drawings to facilitate subsequent retrieval and management.

[0066] By adopting a cloud-based drawing library for archiving and backup, centralized management and long-term preservation of the drawing revision results are achieved. On the one hand, cloud storage can provide a large storage space and strong data security protection, effectively preventing the loss or damage of drawing files. On the other hand, centralized version management can improve the efficiency of drawing query and retrieval, providing strong support for subsequent project implementation and operation and maintenance work.

[0067] In summary, the drawing review collaboration control system combined with permission constraints provided by the embodiments of the present application has the following technical effects:

[0068] The review panel formation module is used to form a drawing review panel, which includes first reviewers with the first review permission and second reviewers with the second review permission, laying a foundation for the hierarchical integration and weight allocation of review opinions. The review information integration module is used to perform layer integration processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer integration strategy to obtain the target review result. Among them, the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer's review of the target power drawing based on the first review permission, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer's review of the target power drawing based on the second review permission, enabling the review result to take into account the opinions of reviewers at different levels, improving the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the review result, and providing a reliable basis for subsequent drawing revision. The dispute point identification module is used to obtain the first dispute point, which refers to any one of the multiple review dispute points in the target review result. The first dispute point corresponds to the first review list, and the first review list includes multiple review opinions of multiple reviewers, preparing for efficiently resolving disputes in drawing review and reducing the inefficiency caused by repeated modifications due to disputes. The revision decision-making module is used to introduce a revision decision-making mechanism to analyze multiple review opinions and generate an initial revised version, improving the processing efficiency of review disputes. The re-review and re-examination module is used to introduce a re-review and re-examination mechanism to perform re-review and re-examination processing on the initial revised version to obtain the target revised version of the target power drawing, further improving the quality and reliability of the power drawing.

[0069] Any step of the system described above can be stored as computer instructions or programs in an unrestricted computer memory and can be called and recognized by an unrestricted computer processor to implement any one of the systems in the embodiments of the present application, without further limitation here.

[0070] Furthermore, the first or second as described above may not only represent an order relationship, but may also represent a specific concept, and / or refer to the selection of multiple elements individually or in whole. Obviously, those skilled in the art can make various changes and modifications to this application without departing from the scope of this application. Thus, if these modifications and variations of this application fall within the scope of this application and its equivalent technologies, then this application is intended to include these changes and modifications.

Claims

1. A collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints, characterized in that: include: A review team forming module, wherein the review team forming module is used to form a drawing review team, wherein the drawing review team includes a first reviewer with a first review authority and a second reviewer with a second review authority; A review information fusion module, the review information fusion module is used to perform layer fusion processing on the first review information and the second review information according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain a target review result, wherein the first review information refers to the result information of the first reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the first review authority, and the second review information refers to the result information of the second reviewer reviewing the target power drawing based on the second review authority; A dispute point identification module, the dispute point identification module is used to obtain a first dispute point, the first dispute point refers to any one of a plurality of review dispute points in the target review result, the first dispute point corresponds to a first review list, and the first review list includes a plurality of review opinions of a plurality of reviewers; A revision decision module, wherein the revision decision module is used to introduce a revision decision mechanism to analyze the multiple review opinions and generate an initial revision version; A review and reexamination module, wherein the review and reexamination module is used to introduce a review and reexamination mechanism to review and reexaminate the initial revised version to obtain a target revised version of the target power drawing; The review information fusion module includes the following execution steps: Extracting any review information of the first reviewer on any drawing point in the first review information; Reading a predetermined review label strategy, and labeling the arbitrary review information according to the predetermined review label strategy to obtain an arbitrary label map; Generate a first review visual graph according to the arbitrary label graph; Acquire a second review visual graph of the second review information; Performing layer fusion processing on the first review visual graph and the second review visual graph according to the review layer fusion strategy to obtain the target review result; The review module includes the following steps: The re-evaluation and re-review mechanism includes an assessment and verification mechanism; Screening the multiple reviewers according to the review and verification mechanism to obtain a target reviewer set, wherein the target reviewer set includes reviewers corresponding to the multiple review opinions among the multiple review opinions; Obtaining verification results of the initial revised version by each verifier in a verification group, wherein the verification group refers to a combination of three verifiers randomly selected from the target verifier set; When the verification result does not meet the first pass rate threshold, the initial revised version is repaired.

2. According to claim 1, the collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints is characterized in that: The jury formation module includes the following execution steps: Extract the first review category from the drawing review category set; Establishing a first set of reviewers for the first review category, and forming the drawing review team based on the first set of reviewers; Among them, the drawing review category set at least includes a preliminary review category set, a technical review category set, a safety review category set, an economic review category set and an environmental impact assessment category set.

3. According to claim 2, the collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints is characterized in that: The jury formation module also includes the following execution steps: Obtaining a first review scope of the first review category; The first review scope is analyzed to obtain first review authority, and the first review authority is opened to the first reviewer set.

4. According to claim 1, the collaborative control system for drawing review combined with authority constraints is characterized in that: The review information fusion module also includes the following execution steps: Determining N reference points in the first review visual graph as registration points according to the review layer fusion strategy, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3; According to the registration points, offset registration is performed on the N points to be registered in the second review visible graph to obtain the target review result.

5. The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The review module also includes the following steps: When the verification result meets the first pass rate threshold, obtaining a repeated review mechanism in the re-evaluation and re-examination mechanism; Forming a target reviewer set, wherein the target reviewer set refers to a set of reviewers formed by removing the target checker set from the multiple reviewers; Obtaining review results of the initial revised version by each reviewer in a review group, wherein the review group refers to a combination of three reviewers randomly selected from the target reviewer set; When the review result does not meet the second pass rate threshold, a special collaborative review is conducted on the initial revised version.

6. The drawing review collaborative control system combined with authority constraints according to claim 5 is characterized in that: When the review result meets the second pass rate threshold, the initial revision is used as the target revision, and the target revision is archived and backed up to a cloud drawing library.

Images